Rangers re-sign Derek Stepan [2 years, $6.15M, $3.075M AAV]

Rangers have set a precedence already, it goes something like, Everyone waits until we sign UFAs, must shop first. Then we'll get around to the RFAs with arbitration rights. Then we'll scour the league for what we think are bargains. Then finally the RFAs without arbitration rights, they'll just have to take whatever is leftover. Yet they want Stepan to believe if he signs a bridge deal they are going to extend him before they have to, before they go through this whole process again, twice, and they'll have the cap space to do so? Yeah right.

Except it doesn't actually work that way. They've been talking to Stepan's agent since day 1. It's the nature of Stepan's contract status that prolongs the negotiations, not anything that Sather is or isn't doing.

UFAs generally sign first because they have multiple teams bidding for their services. Teams can't afford to squeeze UFAs to take less money. The player will just sign somewhere else.

RFAs with arbitration rights don't have multiple teams bidding on them, but they have arbitrators who are likely to give the player a contract that isn't favorable to the team. The most the Rangers could have elected in arbitration for McD would have been 2 years. Do you think the arbitrator would have given McD much less than 4.7 per year? Teams have a pretty big incentive to get the deals done before they reach arbitration.

RFAs without arbitration rights have no reason to settle early, and teams have no reason to press the issue. That's why for ALL teams, not just the Rangers, these deals are usually the last ones signed. They aren't the last ones negotiated, they are simply the last ones to get done because neither side has any pressure until it gets closer to camp.

I don't care what you think of Sather, but he isn't an idiot when it comes to managing the cap. And even if he is, he has plenty of people to help him. Before they sign anyone, they come up with a plan as to which players they are going to target and how much they are willing to spend on each player.

The parameters for Stepan's contract were decided months ago. There was never any question that he would get more than 2 years. You can argue that they should have planned for a long term deal, but don't spout BS about them giving Stepan whatever is left, because all that does is show how little you understand the process.

An SPC for a Group 2 Free Agent will be rejected and will be null and void ab initio (i.e., the Player's Free Agency and contractual status shall revert to the status he held prior to signing his SPC), if it is not signed and filed with Central Registry by 5:00 p.m. New York time on December 1 in the then current NHL Season.

Stepan needs FOUR years of pro experience to be arbitration eligible. Sitting out this season doesn't given FOUR years of pro experience.

Jeff Gorton indicated the cap is factoring into the Rangers thought process

Quote:

So how do you identify which players get the bridge and which players to commit to long term?

"That's a tough question," said Rangers assistant GM Jeff Gorton, talking in general terms and not about Stepan. "In this day and age, we have a cap team and having the type of players that we have on our team, making the kind of money we have, sometimes it's circumstance more than the player."

And that's what is happening with the Rangers right now. They clearly like Stepan, but they are squeezed financially, which makes the bridge deal the preferred course of action.

"It has nothing to do with the player, especially in this case," Gorton said. "You have a cap that's going down. Then a bridge becomes a more appealing contract to us. We have to get through this year. That's basically the genesis of it. It's that simple."

Except it doesn't actually work that way. They've been talking to Stepan's agent since day 1. It's the nature of Stepan's contract status that prolongs the negotiations, not anything that Sather is or isn't doing.

UFAs generally sign first because they have multiple teams bidding for their services. Teams can't afford to squeeze UFAs to take less money. The player will just sign somewhere else.

RFAs with arbitration rights don't have multiple teams bidding on them, but they have arbitrators who are likely to give the player a contract that isn't favorable to the team. The most the Rangers could have elected in arbitration for McD would have been 2 years. Do you think the arbitrator would have given McD much less than 4.7 per year? Teams have a pretty big incentive to get the deals done before they reach arbitration.

RFAs without arbitration rights have no reason to settle early, and teams have no reason to press the issue. That's why for ALL teams, not just the Rangers, these deals are usually the last ones signed. They aren't the last ones negotiated, they are simply the last ones to get done because neither side has any pressure until it gets closer to camp.

I don't care what you think of Sather, but he isn't an idiot when it comes to managing the cap. And even if he is, he has plenty of people to help him. Before they sign anyone, they come up with a plan as to which players they are going to target and how much they are willing to spend on each player.

The parameters for Stepan's contract were decided months ago. There was never any question that he would get more than 2 years. You can argue that they should have planned for a long term deal, but don't spout BS about them giving Stepan whatever is left, because all that does is show how little you understand the process.

Who cares if UFAs sign somewhere else? Set a price offer it and let them decide, if they sign somewhere else good for them.

And once again the Rangers are allowing the CBA set their terms, other teams, at least some of them have found a better way to get their RFA's without arbitration rights signed to fair contracts. This is a unique year to do so since the cap is set artificially low.

The parameters the Rangers came up with for Stepan were wrong from the get go, they should have done what other teams are doing with their core players and locked him up long term.

The whole reason the Rangers are so set on a two year deal is because that is all the space they have left for this year and next. They literally have 6 NHL players signed for next season. That is how the Rangers operate and that is how they have been operating for years.

That is how the Rangers operate and that is how they have been operating for years.

And they've been one of the best in the league at managing the cap in that time. Never restrained from doing what they want despite flirting with the limit every year. It's the very definition of good cap management. You can say what you want about the individual personnel decisions, but what you said there isn't a criticism. Sathers philosophy on forwards coming off their ELC is a big part of why they've been good at it.

The parameters the Rangers came up with for Stepan were wrong from the get go, they should have done what other teams are doing with their core players and locked him up long term.

If that's the argument you want to make, I have no problem with it. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I wouldn't have been against Stepan getting a long term deal.

Quote:

The whole reason the Rangers are so set on a two year deal is because that is all the space they have left for this year and next.

This is where your argument falls apart. You keep insisting that Stepan is only getting 2 years because the Rangers didn't leave themselves enough space to sign him to a longer term. You've got your cause and effect backwards. They only have that much space left because they never intended to give Stepan more than 2 years. If they had planned to give him a long term deal, they would have left themselves more cap space.

Like I said, if you disagree with the decision to give him a bridge contract rather than a long term deal, that's fine. But that decision was made months ago. It has nothing to do with how much cap space they have left.

Sathers philosophy on forwards coming off their ELC is a big part of why they've been good at it.

Exactly. Would we rather be edmonton? They just gave RNH 6 mil per year and he's accomplished far less than Stepan has. They're paying him on potential, not accomplishment. Those kinds of contracts are a big gamble.

Exactly. Would we rather be edmonton? They just gave RNH 6 mil per year and he's accomplished far less than Stepan has. They're paying him on potential, not accomplishment. Those kinds of contracts are a big gamble.

This is where your argument falls apart. You keep insisting that Stepan is only getting 2 years because the Rangers didn't leave themselves enough space to sign him to a longer term. You've got your cause and effect backwards. They only have that much space left because they never intended to give Stepan more than 2 years. If they had planned to give him a long term deal, they would have left themselves more cap space.

Like I said, if you disagree with the decision to give him a bridge contract rather than a long term deal, that's fine. But that decision was made months ago. It has nothing to do with how much cap space they have left.

No, I am insisting that the Rangers should have left space for a long term deal for Stepan.

The other moves they made, whether this off-season or in off-season's past as well as next year's off-season are the cause of them only offering a 2 year deal because that is what crafted this finely tuned plan of theirs.

True, but they expected him to continue to produce at that level in the future. They didn't give him all that money just because he played well for tampa and dallas. Accomplishment is the rubric by which most players get paid, but teams are willing to give that money because they believe the player will achieve the same or better results in the future.

The Rangers have never, ever had to give the RFAs "what's left" under the salary cap. What makes you think they're going to have to do that in the future? Every year, we hear about how the Rangers cap issues. Every year, we resign our RFAs, bring in the UFAs and are able to add pieces at the deadline.

The Rangers have the cap space to sign Stepan to a 4 or 5 year deal. They don't want to. It's a big difference.

When was the last time the Rangers had a franchise goalie, their captain and top minute eating defender along with 8 or so other players to resign or replace the following season?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tawnos

Sathers philosophy on forwards coming off their ELC is a big part of why they've been good at it.

Up until this point I agree, I've agreed with all the times they've used their leverage before and I'll probably agree when they do so with other future players. In this case I think they messed it up. Playing the leverage game with Del Zotto, Dubinsky, is a bit different than doing it with Stepan and especially this year when they could have saved some future cap money by just signing him long term while the cap is artificially set low.

No, I am insisting that the Rangers should have left space for a long term deal for Stepan.

The other moves they made, whether this off-season or in off-season's past as well as next year's off-season are the cause of them only offering a 2 year deal because that is what crafted this finely tuned plan of theirs.

You keep saying different things. Did they plan to only give him 2 years and then spend their money accordingly? Or did they spend their money and then decide to only give him 2 years? If you think it's the latter, you're mistaken.

When was the last time the Rangers had a franchise goalie, their captain and top minute eating defender along with 8 or so other players to resign or replace the following season?

Up until this point I agree, I've agreed with all the times they've used their leverage before and I'll probably agree when they do so with other future players. In this case I think they messed it up. Playing the leverage game with Del Zotto, Dubinsky, is a bit different than doing it with Stepan and especially this year when they could have saved some future cap money by just signing him long term while the cap is artificially set low.

Improvement doesn't mean that he's been consistent. Playing in every game doesn't do a damn thing for me in this regard. As far as I'm concerned, Stepan still has the inconsistency issues Dubinsky did coming off his ELC, just producing at a higher rate. I just don't see why Stepan should be getting different treatment here. (By the way, I do think that he will get there with the consistency and at least a 1A type of center over full seasons, but he hasn't earned it yet)

We don't know if any of those players you mentioned will even make it to the offseason next year. Let's not freak out worrying about it. We are entering a new phase in this franchise build, where we have homegrown players becoming UFAs. That's definitely true that we don't know how Sather will work on them. But I'm not worried about his ability to manage the cap next offseason, at all.

No, I am insisting that the Rangers should have left space for a long term deal for Stepan.

The other moves they made, whether this off-season or in off-season's past as well as next year's off-season are the cause of them only offering a 2 year deal because that is what crafted this finely tuned plan of theirs.

The Rangers generally speaking offer 2 year bridge deal to players coming off EIC's so why should Stepan be treated any differently?

I keep reading how stepan has no leverage. I guess purely from a CBA standpoint he doesn't but I find it hard to believe as this holdout continues sather won't move towards stepan. Beaver is an inferior player at this point making double offered to stepan. The evidence will be plain to see in short order With beaver as a 1c and the fans will be calling for sathers head. Leverage can't make beaver play better or change his cap #. Beaver is relevant to steps holdout because step isn't signed, yet beaver was brought back at inflated salary despite underperforming. So on one hand your paying a player you didn't have to huge dollars yet hardball with step over couple hundred k.

Understandably, you can't cave on all contract negotiations but step is one of our top players. So while you disparage stepan I hope you enjoy the beaver.

Seriously though, for a player that has looked like poo for just as long as he's played well he needs to take the bridge deal. His playoff stats speak for themselves and he's not an explosive offensive player. He's improving but he has 0 reason to think he's worth more than what's being offered

When was the last time the Rangers had a franchise goalie, their captain and top minute eating defender along with 8 or so other players to resign or replace the following season?

Up until this point I agree, I've agreed with all the times they've used their leverage before and I'll probably agree when they do so with other future players. In this case I think they messed it up. Playing the leverage game with Del Zotto, Dubinsky, is a bit different than doing it with Stepan and especially this year when they could have saved some future cap money by just signing him long term while the cap is artificially set low.

Why should Stepan be treated any differently than the others? The point people aren't bringing up is that while his production has been good and his game has grown in 3 years, he still hasn't proven that he can produce in the playoffs when the checking is tighter, the space is less and the game is way more physical. Fourteen(14) points in thirty seven(37) career playoff games doesn't equate in any way, shape or form to a longterm contract at 5 mil AAV, not when a player like Tavares who is 100 times better than Stepan is playing for 5 mil for the next 6 years.

Seriously though, for a player that has looked like poo for just as long as he's played well he needs to take the bridge deal. His playoff stats speak for themselves and he's not an explosive offensive player. He's improving but he has 0 reason to think he's worth more than what's being offered

Degrading Stepan's progression to the 2nd best forward on this team is shameful in this discussion.

Played like poo for just as long as hes played well? False. A lie by you.

Playoff stats speak for themselves? How about the fact that nobody has scored in the playoffs for this team.

The guy has zero leverage, and he should take what the Rangers are offering at this point. But tearing the guy down? Why? Hes the best forward the Rangers have developed in quite some time.

Why should Stepan be treated any differently than the others? The point people aren't bringing up is that while his production has been good and his game has grown in 3 years, he still hasn't proven that he can produce in the playoffs when the checking is tighter, the space is less and the game is way more physical. Fourteen(14) points in thirty seven(37) career playoff games doesn't equate in any way, shape or form to a longterm contract at 5 mil AAV, not when a player like Tavares who is 100 times better than Stepan is playing for 5 mil for the next 6 years.

Nobody brings up that point because they understand the entire team couldn't score in the playoffs -- and thats its a small sample size being used against a very young player.

Your hero Matt Duchene only had 3 assists in his 6 career playoff games. Maybe playing less playoff games is a benefit to your argument, somehow?

The Tavares stuff is just you taking this discussion even further down the rabbit hole.

Degrading Stepan's progression to the 2nd best forward on this team is shameful in this discussion.

Played like poo for just as long as hes played well? False. A lie by you.

Playoff stats speak for themselves? How about the fact that nobody has scored in the playoffs for this team.

The guy has zero leverage, and he should take what the Rangers are offering at this point. But tearing the guy down? Why? Hes the best forward the Rangers have developed in quite some time.

I'm not degrading him though. If you watched the rangers at all the past two years you'd know Stepan struggled mightily for the last 20 games of 2012 plus the 2012 playoffs, plus the beginning 12 games of last season. You're saying that just because everyone else sucked that it's OK that Stepan sucked. Not how it works.

I view the player as a hockey fan. You view him as a Ranger fan. Fine, but him being the best forward we've produced is a testament to our pretty brutal drafting, not to Stepan. And BTW, Callahan who we also produced is twice the player Stepan is

The point about Stepan's playoffs is very valid, BRB. Not only are his point totals low, but his overall game in the playoffs has been nothing to write home about. I think it's a conditioning issue myself more than anything.

__________________

"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
I still think there should be a section of people at MSG behind the visiting bench, in curly wigs, and dark rimmed glasses, calling themselves the Pidtophiles. - Zamboner

I'm not degrading him though. If you watched the rangers at all the past two years you'd know Stepan struggled mightily for the last 20 games of 2012 plus the 2012 playoffs, plus the beginning 12 games of last season. You're saying that just because everyone else sucked that it's OK that Stepan sucked. Not how it works

So does that constitute playing poorly for as long as he played well? No, not by your #'s. Go ahead and admit you were using hyperbole just to make a point.

You're saying that just because everyone else sucked that it's OK that Stepan sucked. Not how it works.

It is exactly how it works. It is not a tennis. Hockey is a team sport. Player has to have talent, skills and show effort. The result is beyond his/her control. There is coach for it. Boston outplayed us, end of story. It is wrong thread to ask why. It was not Step's fault.